On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 13:59, Brad Porter wrote: > Oops, let me clarify. I think the write up below is my best attept to > date to explain the choice of the PI. The PI seems the most > appropriate feature of XML for our use case, so some understanding of > why it is best not to use the PI would be valuable so I can articulate > that to the working group. I look forward to your full review. Yes, I didn't give much reason for not using a PI. One important reason is that namespaces don't apply to PIs. Dave gave another: the DOM doesn't give access to them. [[ Good practice: Namespace adoption A specification that establishes an XML vocabulary SHOULD place all element names and global attribute names in a namespace ]] -- http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#xml-namespaces > Also, is there an XML 1.1 deprecated or "not recommended" features > list? I'm not aware of a list, just the one note about PIs: "The use of XML processing instructions in this specification should not be taken as a precedent. The W3C does not anticipate recommending the use of processing instructions in any future specification." -- http://www.w3.org/1999/06/REC-xml-stylesheet-19990629/ -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 19:55:25 UTC